Religion's role

[TomF]

If the book is about how to build a nuke in your garage or make and set an IED using stuff you'd buy at local stores, yeah. Etc.

There must be, imo, a genuine risk of significant harm to others as well as oneself, in my view. But criteria do exist for making such a choice.

Books about Rosa Parks, or two gay penguins raising a baby don't make that grade.

[Breakaway]

To find another way to say what I'm trying to say: A parent has the right to monitor the books his/her child may read, but do they have the right to do so for the children of others?

All parents have a right to opine on what gets taught in a classroom. What actually happens is determined by the school board, and other elected officials, at the the local and state levels. So, those who don't like it, can vote and get involved, or they can do nothing and complain.

FWIW The parents stating their case ( whether we agree with them or not) choose to get involved.

Kevin

[CWSmith]

I sometimes think there will a great many more women in Heaven than men.

[Osborne Russell]

To find another way to say what I'm trying to say: A parent has the right to monitor the books his/her child may read, but do they have the right to do so for the children of others?

Who's telling someone else's children what books they may read? No one. The issue is what books are taught in schools. Schools are government. Government is self-rule. That's why "they have the right." I have no children at all and I have the right.

[John Smith]

Who's telling someone else's children what books they may read? No one. The issue is what books are taught in schools. Schools are government. Government is self-rule. That's why "they have the right." I have no children at all and I have the right.

You assume all kids can get to a library or a book store. Why have any books in school?

As I've said before, we should leave educating our children to the educators, much as get mechanics to keep our cars running, get electricians or plumbers for work in their respective expertise.

Educating our children, however, we leave under control of parents?

[skuthorp]

Children are still seen as Chatels by some in America it seems, as are women still in some cultures

[Breakaway]

You assume all kids can get to a library or a book store. Why have any books in school?

As I've said before, we should leave educating our children to the educators, much as get mechanics to keep our cars running, get electricians or plumbers for work in their respective expertise.

Educating our children, however, we leave under control of parents?

John, you are again taking an all or nothing position.

Parents, in fact the community, can provide input to the teachers without taking over and doing the teachers job.

To extend your metaphor, it is akin to making sure that the auto mechanic really does replace a part or that the plumber does in fact do the installation up to code.

Kevin

[John Smith]

John, you are again taking an all or nothing position.

Parents, in fact the community, can provide input to the teachers without taking over and doing the teachers job.

To extend your metaphor, it is akin to making sure that the auto mechanic really does replace a part or that the plumber does in fact do the installation up to code.

Kevin

Parents in some places are taking over. They are tying up the minds of teachers and students. My kids were in school when Reagan's "Thorough and efficient" education in many ways tied their hands and interfered with their ability to do their jobs.

When I was in school, my favorite teacher (I've learned from friends who had him that he was their favorite teacher) taught us that propaganda is not unique to other countries: the the USA also does some. That comment, true as it was, got him fired. The fact that the students from his class did better on final exams, or that they stood up and spoke on his behalf, made no difference.

Students in school should learn about the world as it was, as it is, and not about it being as we wished it was.

[WI-Tom]

John, you are again taking an all or nothing position.

Parents, in fact the community, can provide input to the teachers without taking over and doing the teachers job.

To extend your metaphor, it is akin to making sure that the auto mechanic really does replace a part or that the plumber does in fact do the installation up to code.

Kevin

I understand this point of view, and share it to some extent. Certainly it would be ridiculous to argue that parents (or the community at large) have no place in monitoring or shaping public education, and just leave it all to the teachers. But it's a persnickety-ish complicated thing.

For one thing, teachers in public schools don't have anything close to full autonomy. Typically, their choices and techniques are constrained by things like:

1. A state department of public education and their mandated teaching standards--for most states, that means the Common Core Curriculum for core academic classes.
2. District-level and school-level mandates about curriculum decisions (again, all needing to fit with the Common Core).
3. Department-level decisions about what each course should look like: concepts to be taught, skills to be developed, texts to be used, sometimes specific assignments and assessments that must be included to ensure a reasonable level of uniformity among different teachers teaching the same classes.
4. Professional standards that define what best practices are within teaching in general, and within each specific academic discipline (e.g. the positions of the National Council of Teachers of English).
5. Their own education and experience, and their own teaching style and personality.

Basically, adherence to the teaching standards as defined by the state trumps all the rest. There is broad latitude in how to meet the standards, but the standards must be met.

So, when parents challenge curriculum decisions, they are one particular set of stakeholders. But most parents lack any knowledge or education related in how to teach, or what to teach.

And often, objections are based on parents' religious beliefs and values. Well, sorry--but religious beliefs and values have no role to play in shaping the curriculum or teaching methods used in U.S. public schools. So sorry. You don't get to insist on "creation science" being taught side-by-side with evolution. You don't get to object to classes that address LGBTQ+ issues (obviously, sexually explicit material is a different thing altogether). You don't get to demand that climate change deniers be given equal time alongside actual science. And you don't get to demand that schools remove books from libraries simply because they offend your religious beliefs and values.

But of course, right-wing fundamentalist Christians all too often try to insist on all those things, and attack teachers they perceive as not being willing to promote their religious views.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Who's telling someone else's children what books they may read? No one. The issue is what books are taught in schools. Schools are government. Government is self-rule. That's why "they have the right." I have no children at all and I have the right.

When parents successfully challenge a book and force a school district to remove it from the school library, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment, OR? It's government restricting access to speech. I would think you of anyone here would be outraged by such anti-liberal behavior.

Tom

[Breakaway]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is appreciated.

I still disagree on this point:

You don't get to insist on "creation science" being taught side-by-side with evolution. You don't get to object to classes that address LGBTQ+ issues (obviously, sexually explicit material is a different thing altogether). You don't get to demand that climate change deniers be given equal time alongside actual science. And you don't get to demand that schools remove books from libraries simply because they offend your religious beliefs and values.

I believe they do have the right to insist or lobby for these things. Mandatory Lithuanian in the foreign language dept. We want abacuses! Down with calculators! Whatever. The stakeholder may voice her opinion and desire.

In turn, me and you and others can state how ridiculous those things are. If we choose to.

Whether those desires get implemented is up to people who have been elected.

So, we see in Florida, for example, some educational inputs that would not be tolerated elsewhere, get enacted. Why? Because the electorate ( or a big chunk of the electorate that bothers to vote) pushed for it. If they did not do this directly, they did it indirectly by electing officials espousing certain general value sets.



Kevin

[Keith Wilson]

When parents successfully challenge a book and force a school district to remove it from the school library, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment, OR? It's government restricting access to speech. I would think you of anyone here would be outraged by such anti-liberal behavior.

Eh? School libraries necessarily have a small subset of all the books available, and they therefore have to make a choice about what to put on the shelves. Preventing a book from being published or distributed, prosecuting the author or publisher - that would be a violation of the First Amendment. Taking it out of a school library isn't, whether it's a good idea or not.

Here's the text, FWIW: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[WI-Tom]

When parents successfully challenge a book and force a school district to remove it from the school library, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment, OR? It's government restricting access to speech. I would think you of anyone here would be outraged by such anti-liberal behavior.

Eh? School libraries necessarily have a small subset of all the books available, and they therefore have to make a choice about what to put on the shelves. Preventing a book from being published or distributed, prosecuting the author or publisher - that would be a violation of the First Amendment. Taking it out of a school library isn't, whether it's a good idea or not.

Here's the text, FWIW: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I should have said "When parents successfully challenge a book because it is contrary to their religious beliefs and values... etc. etc.

Because doing so is very definitely a violation of the Establishment Clause:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

That's the Lemon Test, as applied (e.g.) in Edwards v. Aguillard

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is appreciated.

Same for me--it's an interesting and complicated issue.

I believe they do have the right to insist or lobby for these things. Mandatory Lithuanian in the foreign language dept. We want abacuses! Down with calculators! Whatever. The stakeholder may voice her opinion and desire.

In turn, me and you and others can state how ridiculous those things are. If we choose to.

Whether those desires get implemented is up to people who have been elected.

So, we see in Florida, for example, some educational inputs that would not be tolerated elsewhere, get enacted. Why? Because the electorate ( or a big chunk of the electorate that bothers to vote) pushed for it. If they did not do this directly, they did it indirectly by electing officials espousing certain general value sets.

Kevin

Oh, parents can lobby for anything they want. I don't disagree.

But, as I posted in my reply to Keith, the Lemon Test demands that government action must have a legitimate secular purpose. So any lobbying parents do, when it is motivated by their specific religious beliefs and values, cannot result in government action to support those demands. That's just not permissible by law.

And my perception is that, when parents lobby against books or classroom topics, those protests are--in a large and perhaps overwhelming majority of cases--based on specific religious beliefs, usually right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

Is there a secular purpose in opposing discussion of LGBTQ+ issues? (Again, not talking sexually explicit material). Is there a secular purpose in teaching creation science? (Maybe--but courts will scrutinize the motivations behind such laws, and usually rule against). Is there a secular purpose in denying the teaching of climate science?

The issues you mention are not religious issues. And so, they would be permitted to be supported by government action. It's not the same thing.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

Good point about the Lemon test, actually. Removing books from the library because of religious objections is edging all too close to an action done for a purely religious purpose, even if they can come up with some semi-secular reasoning.

[skuthorp]

Dumbing down, down, down……………..

[John Smith]

Same for me--it's an interesting and complicated issue.



Oh, parents can lobby for anything they want. I don't disagree.

But, as I posted in my reply to Keith, the Lemon Test demands that government action must have a legitimate secular purpose. So any lobbying parents do, when it is motivated by their specific religious beliefs and values, cannot result in government action to support those demands. That's just not permissible by law.

And my perception is that, when parents lobby against books or classroom topics, those protests are--in a large and perhaps overwhelming majority of cases--based on specific religious beliefs, usually right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

Is there a secular purpose in opposing discussion of LGBTQ+ issues? (Again, not talking sexually explicit material). Is there a secular purpose in teaching creation science? (Maybe--but courts will scrutinize the motivations behind such laws, and usually rule against). Is there a secular purpose in denying the teaching of climate science?

The issues you mention are not religious issues. And so, they would be permitted to be supported by government action. It's not the same thing.

Tom

Guess the question is one of the freedom to listen, or to read. Many different people are apt to find many different books 'objectionable'. Seems this can snowball out of control.

[skuthorp]

What happens if a group of parents find the bible objectionable, or parts of it?

[John Smith]

What happens if a group of parents find the bible objectionable, or parts of it?

If they had the votes a board meeting........

[Osborne Russell]

You assume all kids can get to a library or a book store. Why have any books in school?

You're avoiding the question. Who's telling someone else's children what books they may read, as you allege?

As I've said before, we should leave educating our children to the educators, much as get mechanics to keep our cars running, get electricians or plumbers for work in their respective expertise.

Educating our children, however, we leave under control of parents?

It's not a matter of expertise, it's a matter of liberty.

Schooling is governing. Should we leave all government to the experts?

[Osborne Russell]

When parents successfully challenge a book and force a school district to remove it from the school library, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment, OR? It's government restricting access to speech. I would think you of anyone here would be outraged by such anti-liberal behavior.

Whose speech is being curtailed in such a case? How? The author is not being prevented from publishing, no one is being prevented from reading. Teachers are being prevented from teaching what they want, but I don't know that they have a constitutional right to do so. I seem to remember cases on that point but I've forgotten what they said.

I would think you of anyone here would be outraged by such anti-liberal behavior.

I am, morally. But our government is a government of limited powers, which is a superior level of liberal morality. It is precisely the simple issue raised by CRT and post-modernism in general: ends vs. means. I would not call for the government to curb these yahoos if it violated their rights. I would defend the rights of the yahoos.

[Breakaway]

Same for me--it's an interesting and complicated issue.



Oh, parents can lobby for anything they want. I don't disagree.

But, as I posted in my reply to Keith, the Lemon Test demands that government action must have a legitimate secular purpose. So any lobbying parents do, when it is motivated by their specific religious beliefs and values, cannot result in government action to support those demands. That's just not permissible by law.

And my perception is that, when parents lobby against books or classroom topics, those protests are--in a large and perhaps overwhelming majority of cases--based on specific religious beliefs, usually right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

Is there a secular purpose in opposing discussion of LGBTQ+ issues? (Again, not talking sexually explicit material). Is there a secular purpose in teaching creation science? (Maybe--but courts will scrutinize the motivations behind such laws, and usually rule against). Is there a secular purpose in denying the teaching of climate science?

The issues you mention are not religious issues. And so, they would be permitted to be supported by government action. It's not the same thing.

Tom

Maybe.

But, it is not establishment because citizens spoke for it. If it is establishment, it would be so because those elected to power made the ruling.

The people, whether religious zealot or Rhodes sociologist, have the right to express their opinion.

Want more of your opinions to show up in government? Show up on election day and get others like you to vote, too.



Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RFNK]

Seems to me what Tom and John are trying to do.

[WI-Tom]

Maybe.

But, it is not establishment because citizens spoke for it. If it is establishment, it would be so because those elected to power made the ruling.

Kevin,

that's it exactly. I think we're in agreement. Parents and citizens can voice opinions about any religion-related issues they want. But school boards cannot create policy without a legitimate secular purpose. Neither can legislators.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

When parents successfully challenge a book and force a school district to remove it from the school library, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment, OR? It's government restricting access to speech. I would think you of anyone here would be outraged by such anti-liberal behavior.

Whose speech is being curtailed in such a case? How?

Because removing books in response to religious objectionsviolates the Establishment Clause as interpreted through the Lemon Test. Do try to keep up.

I would not call for the government to curb these yahoos if it violated their rights. I would defend the rights of the yahoos.

Well, first, they DON'T have the right to remove books for religious reasons.

Second, you're stuck in binary thinking as usual. The usual "I'll defend to the death your right to say what you want, even (or perhaps especially) if I find it repugnant or offensive, because if we don't preserve the freedom for you to say whatever you want, all liberty disappears, game over, the republic dies, and liberalism fades away, its grand experiment failed."

This hearkens back to my hate speech thread. A democratic society can, and DOES, put limits on speech it considers harmful.

It's not a question of speech that is merely "offensive."

Hate speech is actually harmful. Harmful to those individuals it targets, and harmful to the foundations of democratic governance. Hate speech can be, and HAS BEEN, criminalized without destroying anyone's "liberty." Just as seat belts can be required. And smoking can be banned in certain locations.

It's not black and white. It's not all or nothing.

You are defending rights that:

1. Do not exist, per the USSC.

And

2. If they did exist, would be incredibly destructive to allow.

Tom

[Breakaway]

Kevin,

that's it exactly. I think we're in agreement. Parents and citizens can voice opinions about any religion-related issues they want. But school boards cannot create policy without a legitimate secular purpose. Neither can legislators.

Tom

Yes!

A final point of disagreement, I believe, anyway, is that boards or officials CAN or WILL or may try to create policy on a non secular basis or in gray areas, despite the law. As in many cases, there is no way to prevent someone from breaking the law, whether they do so intentionally, or in good faith 🤭

But, there is the preventative action of voting in certain people. And, there is the remedy of voting out certain people. So, I still dont see disagreeable policy as being forced upon us. We get the government / school board we allowed and that others wanted.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Keith Wilson]

There's a lot of ambiguity and grey areas, like most things. Removing Fifty Shades of Grey is one thing; removing Dawkins' The God Delusion is another.

[John Smith]

Maybe.

But, it is not establishment because citizens spoke for it. If it is establishment, it would be so because those elected to power made the ruling.

The people, whether religious zealot or Rhodes sociologist, have the right to express their opinion.

Want more of your opinions to show up in government? Show up on election day and get others like you to vote, too.



Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree with the expression of opinions. It's the expression of facts that are not facts that I have a problem with, or forcing/coercing others to live by one's opinions.

[John Smith]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is appreciated.

I still disagree on this point:



I believe they do have the right to insist or lobby for these things. Mandatory Lithuanian in the foreign language dept. We want abacuses! Down with calculators! Whatever. The stakeholder may voice her opinion and desire.

In turn, me and you and others can state how ridiculous those things are. If we choose to.

Whether those desires get implemented is up to people who have been elected.

So, we see in Florida, for example, some educational inputs that would not be tolerated elsewhere, get enacted. Why? Because the electorate ( or a big chunk of the electorate that bothers to vote) pushed for it. If they did not do this directly, they did it indirectly by electing officials espousing certain general value sets.



Kevin

How do you feel about the Rosa Parks book eliminating the fact she was a black woman?

Schools should teach FACTS. Historic facts may be shameful, but is that a reason to not teach them?

[John Smith]

You're avoiding the question. Who's telling someone else's children what books they may read, as you allege?



It's not a matter of expertise, it's a matter of liberty.

Schooling is governing. Should we leave all government to the experts?

Schooling is supposed to be educating.

As to government, I expect my elected officials to consult with experts in a given field before they pass legislation.

[John Smith]

Kevin,

that's it exactly. I think we're in agreement. Parents and citizens can voice opinions about any religion-related issues they want. But school boards cannot create policy without a legitimate secular purpose. Neither can legislators.

Tom

They shouldn't, but they can, and they do.

[WI-Tom]

Yes!

A final point of disagreement, I believe, anyway, is that boards or officials CAN or WILL or may try to create policy on a non secular basis or in gray areas, despite the law. As in many cases, there is no way to prevent someone from breaking the law, whether they do so intentionally, or in good faith 來

But, there is the preventative action of voting in certain people. And, there is the remedy of voting out certain people. So, I still dont see disagreeable policy as being forced upon us. We get the government / school board we allowed and that others wanted.

Kevin

I agree about 90%+, I'd say. But when people succeed in creating policy that has no legitimate secular purpose, I don't see how that isn'tforcing religious beliefs (well, religious behaviors) on others. Public schools are places people are required to attend, by law. And so they are in a situation where they must obey a religious policy that is not relevant to their beliefs. That's pure coercion.

Tom

[David G]

I agree about 90%+, I'd say. But when people succeed in creating policy that has no legitimate secular purpose, I don't see how that isn'tforcing religious beliefs (well, religious behaviors) on others. Public schools are places people are required to attend, by law. And so they are in a situation where they must obey a religious policy that is not relevant to their beliefs. That's pure coercion.

Tom

You were right when you said elsewhere that we aren't on the same page. Myself, and several others, have been attempting to promote Sound Logic regarding this topic... while you continue to spit in its face with blind Motivated Reasoning. I will point out that it's not just me trying to steer you right... it's a cadre of some of the most respected brains in the bilge. Ponder that when you choose which page to be on...

[John Smith]

Religion, it seems, at least to me, to be a matter of OPINION. That would explain why so many different religions exist.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's often said we're not entitled to our own facts, but that, IMO, no longer holds true.

Abortion, sadly, remains an excellent example. Many religiously inclined people believe it is wrong, and they are entitled to their belief. Are they entitled to impose their beliefs on others who believe differently?

This is even more awkward, for lack of a better word, when Catholic Priests get involved.

[David G]

Religion, it seems, at least to me, to be a matter of OPINION. That would explain why so many different religions exist.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's often said we're not entitled to our own facts, but that, IMO, no longer holds true.

Abortion, sadly, remains an excellent example. Many religiously inclined people believe it is wrong, and they are entitled to their belief. Are they entitled to impose their beliefs on others who believe differently?

This is even more awkward, for lack of a better word, when Catholic Priests get involved.

More of the same grade of bad logic. See... you've skipped a step.

People who make policy get elected based mostly upon their beliefs, allegiances, and/or character.

When they vote on policies, they do so with those various bases.

It doesn't matter whether the beliefs come from religion, a classical education in philosophy, or from long contemplation and introspection in a hermit's cave on a far mountaintop. Same with the origin of their allegiances, or the roots of their character. They vote how they vote based upon a variety of factors. They're no more 'imposing their religion' on you than they are imposing 'the results of classical education' on you. They are as legitimately able to base their votes on religion, atheism, the writings of Yeats, or an epiphany experienced while partaking of LSD.

The point is not what informs those votes. The point is HOW they vote. If you agree... work to re-elect them. If you don't... then work to get someone elected who is more sympatico, or with allegiances you agree with, or with overall better charter.

You can have your suspicions, and feelings, about what factors inform that voting... and you can comment about them ("I think....) but you don't get any say in those factors. Your legitimate interest kicks in when there is a vote. Or a pattern of voting.

If you don't agree with the policies, work to get them changed. Quit whining about how elected representatives are not deciding correctly -- and are 'imposing' their philosophy, knowledge of economics, gut feelings about foreign policy, religion, chemically induced insights, or whatever... ON YOU.